Archive for January, 2013

In a world where we are going broke, we have proven Lyndon Johnson was an idiot. He claimed that America could care for the poor of the entire world. Well, hell, we can’t even do it for the American poor. Not only that, but assistance offers an incentive to not work. People live on margin. If the difference between working and assistance is only a few thousand per year, then my labor 40 hours a week for 250 days a year is really only worth a few thousand, and I’m probably not going to do it. So this is the way that ALL government assistance should work:

1 – Housing should be provided, but it should be scant. It should be 300 square foot or less (additional space may be given if children are involved by way of another 8×8 bedroom). There should be no television hookup. There should be 7 foot ceilings. There should be no windows. If you want something better, get a job.

2 – Foodstamps should be replaced with a non-choice diet. There are no chips. There are no soda. No pre-prepared food. They should be given surplus food. Eggs. Potatoes. Apples. Powdered milk. Dried beans. Rice/Bread. The bare essentials. If you want more, get a job.

3 – In exchange for these benefits, you lose your ability to vote. The reason is that it creates an incentive to politicians to buy the vote and for the poor to vote for someone just because they promise to steal money from someone else and give to them.

Like all Americans, I want to help the poor, but we cannot steal the incentive to try for a better life. We have to balance these two. We can keep people from being homeless and starving by providing them with the bare necessity and nothing more. The goal is to make life so bland and boring and make them realize that they can have a better life if they just strive for it.

I was quite enamored by CS Lewis after Mere Christianity. However, The Four Loves didn’t quite live up to my high expectations. One, CS Lewis is brutal and unforgiving…of course, God kinda is too, isn’t He? ha ha. It’s definitely not the touchy feely of Men are from Mars Women are from Venus. It wasn’t that it was a bad book, but it tended to go on a little long on each type of love. It was interesting, but it wasn’t as good as Mere Christianity. Oh well. I still have a few others of his work to read through.

I’ve said it before, but now there is proof. Rahm is asking banks to pressure gun manufacturers to go along with “common sense” gun control by cutting them off from funds if they do not comply. Okay, this is what happens under Fascism. You play ball, or you starve. Could you imagine if bankers tried that against the labor unions? What if they did it against people for promoting gay marriage? I could do this all day. The banks have no right to deny someone a loan because of their political, religious, or any other belief. If you think otherwise, think how you would feel if you couldn’t get a mortgage because of who you voted for? In Communist Russia, if you didn’t toe the party line, you didn’t eat. This is the same thing. Extortion. Nothing else.

Thank you to the court which has said what I’ve been saying: This President is Unconstitutional! Recess appointments were provided for when Congress used to meet for 3 months and then THEY WENT HOME! It was not so the President could appoint whoever he wanted over the weekend or what have you. If one Senator wants to sit in the building and declare themselves “in session,” that is a check and balance. If we say that the President has the ability to say when the Senate is in recess, what would be to stop him from saying that they are in recess just because they are out to lunch? This was clearly is way AROUND the Constitution, and that’s something he’s very interested in on a day to day basis.

There is no amount of night life, “culture,” or anything else would be worth living in New York City.

Mayor Bloomberg has declared war on individual liberties. He has determined how much salt you should be able to consume. He has enacted stop and search, which amazingly doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. He has determined how much soda is allowable. He has decided that you cannot smoke in your own apartment or home (even if you own it) if it shares a wall or floor with someone else. I guess the ultra wealthy might still have the freedom to smoke. They want to start cramming people into 300 square foot apartments (similar to the ones I describe in 2084). Finally, there is gun control. One of the provisions that was in the law that got taken out was the CONFISCATION of legally owned “assault weapons.” Once a government starts thinking that they have the RIGHT to come into your house and take what they want, it’s time to get out of that state. It says EXACTLY how they view their relationship to you. Also, there are two possibilities: one, they are so out of touch that they think you will go along with it because it’s for the greater good or two, they know that people will resist and there will be bloodshed, but it’s for the greater good.

If you say “work, money, whatever”: In the age of telecommuting, overnight delivery, video conferencing…do you REALLY have to live in New York? I haven’t even mentioned the crime or taxes!

Remember, the Communists believe in “any means necessary.” Worse, there is no end to tyranny when the tyrant has the justification of his own conscience. If they think they’re doing it for your own good, there will be no end…well, except for the mass graves.

Of course, timelines show that she isn’t telling the whole truth, but this thing’s a farce and the media has been content to let it die. She strikes me like an ultra-defensive teenager. ”What does it matter at this point! Four Americans are dead!” Yes, and that is WHY it matters, isn’t it? After all, if everyone had lived, then there wouldn’t be a problem. I like that Rand Paul said what was true: she should have been relieved of office. In fact, the fact that she wasn’t is proof positive that there is a cover up. When you see a scandal and no one gets fired, it’s a cover up.

My take on what really happened is this: The ambassador asked for help. He was ignored because the election was going on and they didn’t want to either interrupt the campaigning to deal with something or give the impression that Obama’s crown jewel (Libya) was in trouble. It happened, and the embassy called for help. The armed forces were told to stand down because, in a ends justify the means thought, it was better for everyone in that embassy to die than for us to start another armed conflict which could cause the deaths of thousands. There were then attempts at cover ups because the people are too stupid to understand.

Actually, they are too intellectual to understand. This is where moral relativism falls apart. The logical choice, the “smart” choice, is the wrong choice. We should have fought like hell for those men.

Amazing…after Sandy Hook, the President and Democrats declare war on guns. Suddenly, we have a rash of school shootings. Even more interesting, no one seems to ever actually die in any of these school shootings. Even more interesting, we never hear ANYTHING about who or why they did it. I believe Sandy Hook was a crazy guy that killed these kids for some sick reason. These other ones, I suspect. Remember, the Communist creed, “by any means necessary.” Do not give up your rights. We are being played. I don’t think it’s orchestrated by their leaders. I think we are seeing the true believers come out though to advance the message. For the greater good. The ends justify the means.

1) It’s not like he ruined the integrity of the sport. Everyone was doping back then because no one was testing. Ergo, if he didn’t win, another cheater probably would have.

2) It’s the Tour de France. Who the hell cares?

Finally 3) Oh, hooray! We spent 15 years and god knows how many millions of dollars getting this sonnova_____! Woo hoo! I just wish they would show HALF the dedication in going after corrupt politicians.

Socialist tend to focus on the inequality, the disparity in income levels between the rich and the poor. They promote this by preying on the sentiment of those people who say, “I work hard!” My question is, WHEN did you work hard?

Did you work hard right before you retired?

Did you work hard once you hit fifty?

Did you work hard once you hit forty?

Did you work hard once you hit thirty?

Did you work hard right out of school?

Did you work hard in college?

Did you work hard in high school?

Did you work hard growing up?

Whether or not you would like to admit it, there is a strong correlation between working hard earlier life and having a greater degree of success. The later in life you wait to work hard, the harder a life you will have. Dropping out of school and waiting to work hard when you’re forty is going to make your life, and your retirement, very hard. This is not to say that you can’t be successful, but you will just have to work that much harder than the guy that studied five hours every day from 1st grade until he graduated from high school.

I am a Georgia resident. I am a CPA, and author of 2084: The Search for Love, Hope, and Faith. I am a Constitutionalist by nature and consider myself very patriotic. I am very concerned about the direction of our country, and I need you to understand the enormity of the issues at hand.

The current administration is taking many steps that are counter to the Constitution of the United States. In particular, the President is seeking to extort the ability to raise the debt limit from Congress and grant it to the Executive Branch. The other place where the President is striking at the Constitution is the Second Amendment.

The ability to control debt and spending is granted to the Congress. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution says that the Congress has the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” The President argues that he is not asking to spend additional money, merely that he wants to pay for the spending that has already been authorized. President Obama is assuming that people are upset at his attempt to usurp the Constitution under Article I, Section 8 “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” For justification of this action, his supporters point to Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment which states that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.” What, I ask you, gives anyone the idea that this should mean that the President can raise the debt limit?

If anything, the Fourteenth Amendment would provide the argument against the President having such power. If you notice, it says that the public debt could not be questioned when it is “authorized by law.” In fact, the entire section openly declares the intent. This entire section was to prevent the States for saying they should not be on the hook for the (at that time) massive debt incurred during the civil war.

As far as the President’s argument that he is not authorizing new spending, his argument is irrelevant. As I mentioned, Congress is the only one that can borrow money. Our current financial system effectively confers an increase in debt limit to be the same as an increase in borrowing. If this was not the case, then the entire debt ceiling debate would be meaningless. Ergo, raising the debt limit is, in essence, the same as borrowing money.

The last thing I want to mention is that Congress would be suicidal to cede such a power to the President of the United States. This President has already taken powers away from the Judicial Branch by saying that he has the right to kill US citizens…as long as a group of his choosing decides that they are terrorists. This is done without any due process of law, defeating the Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments. This does not even count the Fourth Amendment which was destroyed under President Bush, and then redestroyed under President Obama while he had both the Senate and the House.

Now the President has set his sights on the Second Amendment. The Democrats have long hated the people being armed, and they seek to infringe upon our rights to keep and bear arms by exploiting the tragedy at Sandy Hook and trotting out little children to tug at the hearts of the weak minded. The President is upset because twenty children were killed. While this is unacceptable and sad, it must be pointed out that twenty children a year drown in five gallon buckets. And yet, I have not seen any executive orders dealing with this danger to our children.

The fact of the matter is that banning “assault weapons” would not have done anything to save those kids. Any popular type of gun could have killed those little children easily. A .22 would have done is just as easily as a .223 round. He could have used a 12 gauge. That would have completely emptied that room. He could have even used dual pistols of any caliber. These are all weapons that the Democrats claim they are not going after, and this is the weakness of any such claim. Any claim that they are only interested in going after “assault weapons” is insane. Doing so and thinking that it will have any effect on crime rates is to assume that criminals are not smart enough to substitute. We already had an “assault weapons” ban. It did not have any effect on crime. Why? Because criminals either got the AR-15 using the black market or other illegal means or they merely used a different weapon. Do you think that they looked for an AR-15; could not find one; and enrolled in college, met a girl, got a job, and settled down and started a family? Not hardly.

The President and the Democrats are also wanting to enact gun control measures through the UN through the Small Arms Treaty. In other words, they seek to get around the Second Amendment by fiat, either by executive order or the treaty process. While in an ideal world, all gun sales would be done using an instant background check, it is impossible to do this between private citizens without infringing upon their rights and adding intolerable costs to this transactions. Any such attempt must be defeated at all costs.

The past twelve years has been a steady assault on the Constitution. This particular President talks a good game about loving freedom and the Constitution, but he has used every chance he has had to go against the Constitution. He has actively gone against the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment. This fails to account for all the extra-Constitutional moves he made in usurping the powers of the other branches and the balance of powers.

I insist that you make full use of your powers and your influence to defeat any measures that limit our Rights and Freedom.

This President already deserves impeachment. However, the is no way anyone will dare try to impeach him because the media will crucify any such brave individual as being racist. However, if the President does take some sort of expansive use of executive power that does openly infringe on the Second Amendment, I urge you to use this final failsafe to try to secure our Rights and Freedoms. All members of the government take an oath to protect and uphold the Constitutional. This President has failed to do so and would thus deserve impeachment.

Sincerely,

Troy David Newham

Greetings,
I am a Georgia resident. I am a CPA, and author of 2084: The Search for Love, Hope, and Faith. I am a Constitutionalist by nature and consider myself very patriotic. I am very concerned about the direction of our country, and I need you to understand the enormity of the issues at hand.
The current administration is taking many steps that are counter to the Constitution of the United States. In particular, the President is seeking to extort the ability to raise the debt limit from Congress and grant it to the Executive Branch. The other place where the President is striking at the Constitution is the Second Amendment.
The ability to control debt and spending is granted to the Congress. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution says that the Congress has the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” The President argues that he is not asking to spend additional money, merely that he wants to pay for the spending that has already been authorized. President Obama is assuming that people are upset at his attempt to usurp the Constitution under Article I, Section 8 “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” For justification of this action, his supporters point to Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment which states that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.” What, I ask you, gives anyone the idea that this should mean that the President can raise the debt limit?
If anything, the Fourteenth Amendment would provide the argument against the President having such power. If you notice, it says that the public debt could not be questioned when it is “authorized by law.” In fact, the entire section openly declares the intent. This entire section was to prevent the States for saying they should not be on the hook for the (at that time) massive debt incurred during the civil war.
As far as the President’s argument that he is not authorizing new spending, his argument is irrelevant. As I mentioned, Congress is the only one that can borrow money. Our current financial system effectively confers an increase in debt limit to be the same as an increase in borrowing. If this was not the case, then the entire debt ceiling debate would be meaningless. Ergo, raising the debt limit is, in essence, the same as borrowing money.
The last thing I want to mention is that Congress would be suicidal to cede such a power to the President of the United States. This President has already taken powers away from the Judicial Branch by saying that he has the right to kill US citizens…as long as a group of his choosing decides that they are terrorists. This is done without any due process of law, defeating the Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments. This does not even count the Fourth Amendment which was destroyed under President Bush, and then redestroyed under President Obama while he had both the Senate and the House.
Now the President has set his sights on the Second Amendment. The Democrats have long hated the people being armed, and they seek to infringe upon our rights to keep and bear arms by exploiting the tragedy at Sandy Hook and trotting out little children to tug at the hearts of the weak minded. The President is upset because twenty children were killed. While this is unacceptable and sad, it must be pointed out that twenty children a year drown in five gallon buckets. And yet, I have not seen any executive orders dealing with this danger to our children.
The fact of the matter is that banning “assault weapons” would not have done anything to save those kids. Any popular type of gun could have killed those little children easily. A .22 would have done is just as easily as a .223 round. He could have used a 12 gauge. That would have completely emptied that room. He could have even used dual pistols of any caliber. These are all weapons that the Democrats claim they are not going after, and this is the weakness of any such claim. Any claim that they are only interested in going after “assault weapons” is insane. Doing so and thinking that it will have any effect on crime rates is to assume that criminals are not smart enough to substitute. We already had an “assault weapons” ban. It did not have any effect on crime. Why? Because criminals either got the AR-15 using the black market or other illegal means or they merely used a different weapon. Do you think that they looked for an AR-15; could not find one; and enrolled in college, met a girl, got a job, and settled down and started a family? Not hardly.
The President and the Democrats are also wanting to enact gun control measures through the UN through the Small Arms Treaty. In other words, they seek to get around the Second Amendment by fiat, either by executive order or the treaty process. While in an ideal world, all gun sales would be done using an instant background check, it is impossible to do this between private citizens without infringing upon their rights and adding intolerable costs to this transactions. Any such attempt must be defeated at all costs.
The past twelve years has been a steady assault on the Constitution. This particular President talks a good game about loving freedom and the Constitution, but he has used every chance he has had to go against the Constitution. He has actively gone against the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment. This fails to account for all the extra-Constitutional moves he made in usurping the powers of the other branches and the balance of powers.
I insist that you make full use of your powers and your influence to defeat any measures that limit our Rights and Freedom.
This President already deserves impeachment. However, the is no way anyone will dare try to impeach him because the media will crucify any such brave individual as being racist. However, if the President does take some sort of expansive use of executive power that does openly infringe on the Second Amendment, I urge you to use this final failsafe to try to secure our Rights and Freedoms. All members of the government take an oath to protect and uphold the Constitutional. This President has failed to do so and would thus deserve impeachment.
Sincerely,Troy David Newham